From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Satoshi Nagayasu <nagayasus(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Pre-allocated free space for row updating (like PCTFREE) |
Date: | 2005-08-22 01:50:10 |
Message-ID: | 5663.1124675410@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Satoshi Nagayasu <nagayasus(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> I've done a quick hack to implement PCTFREE on PostgreSQL.
> ...
> According to my experiments, pgbench score was improved 10% or more
> with 1024 bytes free space.
I'm not very enthused about this. Enforcing 12.5% PCTFREE means that
you pay 12.5% extra I/O costs across the board for INSERT and SELECT
and then hope you can make it back (plus some more) on UPDATEs.
pgbench is a completely UPDATE-dominated benchmark and thus it makes
such a patch look much better than it would on other workloads.
I think the reason Oracle offers this has to do with their
overwrite-based storage management; it's not obvious that the tradeoff
is as useful for us. There are some relevant threads in our archives
here, here, and here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-04/msg00078.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2004-08/msg00402.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2003-10/msg00618.php
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-08-22 01:54:18 | Re: statically linked pg_dump |
Previous Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2005-08-22 01:36:45 | Re: Sleep functions |